Screenshots of Windows 7 build 7070 leak, RC-Escrow coming

Screenshots of build 7070 have leaked, but Microsoft has also already compiled …

Two days ago, details of Windows 7 build 7068 leaked. Now, screenshots of build 7070 have arrived, and the story goes a little something like this: "I just came back from Microsoft, since my Dad works there. He works for in the SQL server division and here are some screenshots I took about the new build 7070. I don't know if there is anything new to this build, but they installed it yesterday, so it probably will be leaked soon. They said it was a major update; maybe not to the user interface but more to the Kernel. Just letting you guys know :P"

Of course, there's no "major update to the kernel" but the screenshots do look legitimate. The screenshot above is just one of three. You can see the other two over at Facepunch forums. I've also done a little digging and found a few build strings since 7068:

6.1.7069.0.winmain.090323-1630

6.1.7070.0.winmain.090324-1853

6.1.7071.0.winmain.090326-1750

6.1.7072.0.winmain.090327-1845

As you can see, the latest build we know of was compiled just two days ago: March 27, at 6:45pm. However, I'd like to add some more fuel to the fire: I've heard that the last three (7070, 7071, and 7072) are being considered to be labelled as the RC-escrow build. That build will be sent to testers sometime in April, and we already know that the RC download page may come in May. That's what I've heard, though what Microsoft will end up doing in the end, I can't guarantee.

I still don't understand why people hate Vista just for the heck of it. It runs fine on new machines. I understand if you tried it two years ago with non-dual core machines and couldn't maintain a stable environment due to its hefty requiremnts...but now its a different story. Today, you can buy a $500 laptop and it will run vista with no hiccups. While I am not in love with Vista, I still would prefer to have it(Especially the x64 version, blazing fast) on a new machine than Xp.

I think Windows 7, as alot of the press has already indicated, will perform much better compared to Vista in its first year, which had enough blunders.

Since the first beta the following builds still have the same issues -

First thing - EVERYONE I spoke to even at the MS booth at CES said they want the UP FOLDER back in explorer - yes there are other ways to go back one folder but the up folder was convenient.

Classic start menu - is not an option but should be an option - classic start menu makes it easier to support clients if they have key components such as network properties and my computer on the desktop. I'm not saying it should be the default but why not make it an option as it was in Windows XP and Vista? I realize you can put some icons on the desktop (not IE) using personalize.

Media Center won't let you click on album art cover once a song is already playing to play the new song from the album art cover. Seems only logical.

Search works well but it would be great if the search in the start menu had a drop down just like run has in the start menu so you can repeat a search from your search history.

Since most current receivers and other media streaming capable devices will support .flac file playback, it seems a shame not to use the native media player in windows as a media streaming server - instead because windows does not natively support flac playback, we have to look at alternative hardware streaming solutions or mediaplayers similar to windows media player but with flac support such as tversity or Twonky or Nero

During Install if you attempt to install with a brand new drive it won't install until you format the drive and reboot.

There is no desktop icon for IE - this was very handy for clear items and change settings etc before going into IE.

Do something with the 200 MB partion in disk manager so it is clear that it is a restore point or whatever - change the color of it, just make it more clearly defined.

Originally posted by boe:Since the first beta the following builds still have the same issues -

First thing - EVERYONE I spoke to even at the MS booth at CES said they want the UP FOLDER back in explorer - yes there are other ways to go back one folder but the up folder was convenient.

Agreed, although the 'breadcrumbs' approach is not that inconvenient either, with the exception being when a directory name is too long.

quote:

Classic start menu - is not an option but should be an option - classic start menu makes it easier to support clients if they have key components such as network properties and my computer on the desktop. I'm not saying it should be the default but why not make it an option as it was in Windows XP and Vista? I realize you can put some icons on the desktop (not IE) using personalize.

Gone. Sorry. Not coming back.

quote:

Media Center won't let you click on album art cover once a song is already playing to play the new song from the album art cover. Seems only logical.

How should it know what the new song is? The albumn cover is just a image file...

Either lean on Creative to properly implement UAA in their drivers or get a real sound card. As of Vista, MS is no longer making hacks in their OS to accomodate Creative devices. Once Creative dropped below 3% marketshare, their days of being non-compliant and expecting the rest of the world to hack everything to work ended. MS won't fix this, and, more importantantly, MS never should have had to fix these issues to begin with.

quote:

Search works well but it would be great if the search in the start menu had a drop down just like run has in the start menu so you can repeat a search from your search history.

Start typing and similiar past searches appear in the space above it.

quote:

Since most current receivers and other media streaming capable devices will support .flac file playback, it seems a shame not to use the native media player in windows as a media streaming server - instead because windows does not natively support flac playback, we have to look at alternative hardware streaming solutions or mediaplayers similar to windows media player but with flac support such as tversity or Twonky or Nero

More media formats is always good.

quote:

During Install if you attempt to install with a brand new drive it won't install until you format the drive and reboot.

Have installed onto a lot of clean non-partitioned HDD's and never run into this problem. Diskpart does not require reboots, and thats the tool it runs in the background, so I have no idea how you've seen this behaviour.

quote:

There is no desktop icon for IE - this was very handy for clear items and change settings etc before going into IE.

There is a default 'desktop' icon for IE, its on the taskbar now. I agree though, they should add the Internet Settings as a right click option on its jump menu.

quote:

Do something with the 200 MB partion in disk manager so it is clear that it is a restore point or whatever - change the color of it, just make it more clearly defined.

This is not a restore point, this is where boot info is now kept. This permits Disklocker to function and keep an *entire* boot partition encrypted. I'm not sure what the complaint is though, its not like most normal users are busy messing around in Disk Manager.

Not the case. Tried it recently on a modern laptop with 4GB RAM. Initially fine, then it just started pausing at random times for 30 seconds or more. XP never did that and I never noticed Vista being more speedy or having a better (as opposed to shinier) UI, so the decision was obvious.

Originally posted by thecomputer:I still don't understand why people hate Vista just for the heck of it. It runs fine on new machines. I understand if you tried it two years ago with non-dual core machines and couldn't maintain a stable environment due to its hefty requiremnts...but now its a different story. Today, you can buy a $500 laptop and it will run vista with no hiccups. While I am not in love with Vista, I still would prefer to have it(Especially the x64 version, blazing fast) on a new machine than Xp.

I think Windows 7, as alot of the press has already indicated, will perform much better compared to Vista in its first year, which had enough blunders.

Not speaking for everyone, but in the case of Corporate IT, let's say you purchased volume licenses with Software Assurance. Basically it means that you paid for Vista in advance.

Now let's say that you have 1000+ desktops you want to upgrade, on software, for this example was paid in advance. Meaning you got approval from C-Level staff to pay for the upgrade in advance. Then you find out that a hardware upgrade is required to run Vista properly and your CFO/CEO asks how the upgrade will proceed. Oh yeah... that is a real fun meeting.

You are correct, for new PCs, you can get it to run fine. The reason that many corporate desktops did not get switched, was for the above stated reason, and that is a LOT of desktops and a lot of IT Managers with egg on their face.

Originally posted by Slimy:^ That's probably a driver issue. Vista is much faster than XP on modern machines.

So what's modern to you? This was a Lenovo T61 (Core 2 Duo). Came with Vista pre-installed. And yes, I got Vista SP1.

What amazes me is that anyone who says they hate Vista is assumed to be at fault. Why defend it? Without bundled sales to prop up the numbers it would be the biggest embarrassment any software company has ever faced.

I never said the machine wasn't modern. I never said you were at fault. I'm defending it because the problems were not Vista-related, they were likely driver-related. Every modern machine that I've encountered, and benchmarks show this, runs better with Vista than with XP.

Originally posted by Slimy:^ That's probably a driver issue. Vista is much faster than XP on modern machines.

Actually Vista is significantly slower than XP in over 80% of the items I've tested. I've run benchmarks on different systems - putting clean installs of both OS's on - using the latest hardware drivers direct from the individual manufacturer's e.g. Intel, Broadcom, nVidia, ATI. XP is just plain faster - doesn't matter if you are talking about a Core 2 3GHz system with 4 GIGs of RAM or an P4, 3GHz with 512MB - XP is faster.

For some reason some people think if you have a fast enough system that Vista is faster. Simple analogy. A hemi pickup truck can tow a truckload of manure easier than a stock ford escort - but both the pickup and the escort run faster without the truckload of manure. Think of Vista as a truckload of manure slowing your system down.

Originally posted by aeberbach:Without bundled sales to prop up the numbers it would be the biggest embarrassment any software company has ever faced.

Same could be said about all previous MS OS's dating back to DOS 1.0. 97% of OS sales for Microsoft has always been bundled deals with OEM's or corporate licensing. The percentages did not change with Vista. If that is an embarrassment, well, I guess the company has been 'embarrassed' for nearly 30 years now.

Originally posted by Slimy:^ That's probably a driver issue. Vista is much faster than XP on modern machines.

Actually Vista is significantly slower than XP in over 80% of the items I've tested. I've run benchmarks on different systems - putting clean installs of both OS's on - using the latest hardware drivers direct from the individual manufacturer's e.g. Intel, Broadcom, nVidia, ATI. XP is just plain faster - doesn't matter if you are talking about a Core 2 3GHz system with 4 GIGs of RAM or an P4, 3GHz with 512MB - XP is faster.

For some reason some people think if you have a fast enough system that Vista is faster. Simple analogy. A hemi pickup truck can tow a truckload of manure easier than a stock ford escort - but both the pickup and the escort run faster without the truckload of manure. Think of Vista as a truckload of manure slowing your system down.

Obviously your testing is an outlier since what you state is not backed by any independent testing sources at this time.

Originally posted by boe:Since most current receivers and other media streaming capable devices will support .flac file playback, it seems a shame not to use the native media player in windows as a media streaming server - instead because windows does not natively support flac playback, we have to look at alternative hardware streaming solutions or mediaplayers similar to windows media player but with flac support such as tversity or Twonky or Nero

Windows Media Player supports everything that you have a DirectShow filter installed for. It might whine the first time you open a file, but you can check a box and move on with things. To support FLAC, you have a pretty decent sampling of options. You can use the official xiph filter (which nets you Vorbis, Speex, and Theora as well). You can also use the madFlac filter. Even ffdshow can play FLAC, but not from stand-alone .flac files.

Not the case. Tried it recently on a modern laptop with 4GB RAM. Initially fine, then it just started pausing at random times for 30 seconds or more. XP never did that and I never noticed Vista being more speedy or having a better (as opposed to shinier) UI, so the decision was obvious.

You've got a broken driver there, no question. It's opening a lock in the kernel and not letting it go in a timely fashion. Either that, or you have a bad hard drive, which can cause long pauses while re-tries reads.

Originally posted by aeberbach:Without bundled sales to prop up the numbers it would be the biggest embarrassment any software company has ever faced.

Same could be said about all previous MS OS's dating back to DOS 1.0. 97% of OS sales for Microsoft has always been bundled deals with OEM's or corporate licensing. The percentages did not change with Vista. If that is an embarrassment, well, I guess the company has been 'embarrassed' for nearly 30 years now.

I doubt that is true especially considering the early days when the OS was a separate line item on your PC order and DOS came in a big binder with a real manual - but it doesn't matter since embarrassment implies a conscience. My mistake.

Originally posted by aeberbach:Without bundled sales to prop up the numbers it would be the biggest embarrassment any software company has ever faced.

Same could be said about all previous MS OS's dating back to DOS 1.0. 97% of OS sales for Microsoft has always been bundled deals with OEM's or corporate licensing. The percentages did not change with Vista. If that is an embarrassment, well, I guess the company has been 'embarrassed' for nearly 30 years now.

I doubt that is true especially considering the early days when the OS was a separate line item on your PC order and DOS came in a big binder with a real manual - but it doesn't matter since embarrassment implies a conscience. My mistake.

That was never a major source of sales for MS. Read your history. Their original deal was a bundle with IBM PC's, you could buy the PC with either MS-DOS or with DR-DOS. They then followed that by licensing to Compaq a couple years later. Its *always* been their major source of sales, people buying it independently are a tiny minority.

Originally posted by aeberbach:Without bundled sales to prop up the numbers it would be the biggest embarrassment any software company has ever faced.

Same could be said about all previous MS OS's dating back to DOS 1.0. 97% of OS sales for Microsoft has always been bundled deals with OEM's or corporate licensing. The percentages did not change with Vista. If that is an embarrassment, well, I guess the company has been 'embarrassed' for nearly 30 years now.

I doubt that is true especially considering the early days when the OS was a separate line item on your PC order and DOS came in a big binder with a real manual - but it doesn't matter since embarrassment implies a conscience. My mistake.

That was never a major source of sales for MS. Read your history. Their original deal was a bundle with IBM PC's, you could buy the PC with either MS-DOS or with DR-DOS. They then followed that by licensing to Compaq a couple years later. Its *always* been their major source of sales, people buying it independently are a tiny minority.

Post the figures, I'm interested. But it's not the way I remember it.

quote:

And whats to be embarrassed about? Dominance is hardly embarrassing.

A shit product should be embarrassing. But the profits make up for any discomfort, all's well.

"I just came back from Microsoft, since my Dad works there. He works for in the SQL server division and here are some screenshots I took about the new build 7070. I don't know if there is anything new to this build, but they installed it yesterday, so it probably will be leaked soon. They said it was a major update; maybe not to the user interface but more to the Kernel. Just letting you guys know :P"

As an aside, if that were my kid making a (presumably) unauthorized photo and leak of a new product, I'm not sure if what I'd feel more: livid or fearful for my continued employment...

I am running 7068 on one laptop here and by and large it looks and feels just like 7057 running next to it on my desktop. Can't find anything significant between the two, they're obviously down to the short strokes on the changes.

What I do know is this is a great OS and I can't wait for the final build.

Originally posted by reflex-croft:we certainly have been privvy to those figures internally.

Of course those figures are not public - but "we" is you and the rest of Microsoft? Sorry if I doubt your impartiality.

I must have missed the post where I claimed to be impartial. All I've ever attempted to do is add information that one such as yourself would not be privvy to. Obviously you wish to discard it since it disproves your hypothesis. Thats fine. But something tells me your not very impartial yourself.

Originally posted by aeberbach:What a great way to win an argument - "I'm right, but why I'm right is a secret."

Hey, quote me the figures that demonstrate MS ever made a significant amount of their sales at retail. That argument goes both ways.

You say you have all the figures already but can't share them. How would any of mine help you?

Could you share some other figures - downgrades for example, those customers who received a machine with Vista and decided they needed to go back to XP. The number of Fortune 500s who went 2000->XP but have announced they will skip Vista?

Originally posted by aeberbach:What a great way to win an argument - "I'm right, but why I'm right is a secret."

Hey, quote me the figures that demonstrate MS ever made a significant amount of their sales at retail. That argument goes both ways.

You say you have all the figures already but can't share them. How would any of mine help you?

You made an assertion. I gave you a reason why it does not ring true for me, and have asked you to back up your statement. So far you have dodged doing so.

quote:

Could you share some other figures - downgrades for example, those customers who received a machine with Vista and decided they needed to go back to XP. The number of Fortune 500s who went 2000->XP but have announced they will skip Vista?

XP had a very very long time on the market. Of course upgrade rates changed. Vista has been on the market a little over two years. Three by the time Windows 7 hits. XP was on the market for more than twice that time. An accurate comparison would be what the adoption rate was for XP after the first two years. Believe it or not, it wasn't very good. For those with too short a memory to remember the XP launch and its aftermath, here is a good refresher: http://community.winsupersite....ista-windows-xp.aspx

Originally posted by aeberbach:Spin, spin. And "I'll ask you a question to which I think I already have the answer in the hope you'll get it wrong. But I won't tell you the right answer even then." I'm not seeing the point of that.

At some point in time though, hardware and software will stop being supported for Windows XP simply because supporting 3 OSs might be a little much for some manufacturers. If Windows 7 lives up to it's promise, I see 3rd part manufacturers dropping XP support after 1-2 years of general Windows 7 availability. That would make it 4.5 years for the public to buy a computer that doesn't have XP on it, which should be a good buffer (and tech junkies will have it within 6 months).

XP is ancient I can't stand the fisher price look. I know you can change themes but for the majority of people they keep the default theme. XP is the swiss cheese of operating systems if you are talking about security and Vista works just fine and is more secure. If you have an older system then stick with XP but I dont know why anyone would get a brand new machine downgrade yes downgrade to XP. What most people forget is that Vista takes advantage of the GPU now especially if you have a dedicated GPU it offloads the rendering away from the CPU so it can do other tasks. Windows 7 is going to refine the foundations of Vista and be pretty awesome in my opinion.

This is pretty standard for Microsoft. Making builds, making leaks, getting improvements from the user base. I'm loving 7057 and I'll hold on to it until the RC. I will most likely buy Windows 7 and migrate very quickly.

Can we stop the Vista bashing? Vista's sold over 180 Million copies. Leopard has sold maybe 15 to 17 million copies. Total Apple Macintosh Base is an estimated 25 Million. Vista works just fine on 32 bit dual, 64 bit, 64 bit Dual, 64 bit quad, or higher CPU based systems. It works fine on any modern machine in the last 2 years. XP is ancient and obsolete. Its a security nightmare compared to Vista.

You can use virtualization to run legacy apps. Most likely, Microsoft will probably add virtualization to Windows 7 to lick any compatibility issues. There's absolutely no reason to hold on to these legacy machines. These old XP machines waste energy and money. Get over it. Its time to move on for security and energy efficiency's sake.

How does a product that sells 180 million a flop? I'll take a 180 Million copies OS flop and all the cash I'll get from it. Now whose the world's richest man? Its not Steve Jobs. Not even close.